|
Atlas Shrugged (平装)
by Ayn Rand
| Category:
Fiction |
| Market price: ¥ 228.00
MSL price:
¥ 208.00
[ Shop incentives ]
|
| Stock:
Pre-order item, lead time 3-7 weeks upon payment [ COD term does not apply to pre-order items ] |
MSL rating:
 Good for Gifts |
| MSL Pointer Review:
A piece of artwork in the form of literature and philosophy, Atlas Shrugged qualifies as an all-time classic with profound implications. |
| If you want us to help you with the right titles you're looking for, or to make reading recommendations based on your needs, please contact our consultants. |
|
| |
AllReviews |
1 2   | Total 2 pages 12 items |
|
|
Robert Mladek (MSL quote), USA
<2007-01-09 00:00>
Yes, it is a long book. Yes, its characters are one-dimensional. And yes "Christian moral values (or pick any religion, except maybe Scientology), are in complete opposition to the ideals of Objectivism".
That's the point. Atlas was written to be a definitive defense of the individual. Its length is necessary because it must address and refute all the arguments that have, for millennia, need used to convince individuals that acting in their own best interest is immoral, sinful and evil.
As to the one-dimensional characters, the fact is that there are two kinds or people: those who are capable and willing of living for themselves (and neither need or want to be served) and those who are not (and for whom service is a life and death proposition).
To make this point, Ms. Rand's "good people" seek to create something of value and then, in a fair trade, exchange it for something of value produced by someone else. Her "bad people" are either not willing or not able to produce anything anyone else would want, and so must rely on other charity (in the best case) or forced servitude (in the worst). Her point is thus that in charity or servitude there is always a winner and a looser: one who gives and one who takes. In fair trade, winners and losers cannot exist because each side receives something he or she values at least as highly (probably more) that what he or she has given up (which is, BTW, the basis for a free-market economy).
Or, this is what it would be like if every person fully reasoned through his or her own actions and motivations. Most people, however, do not. The fact is that most people living on this planet are confused. They seek hold two mutually exclusive views (such as: I must be charitable and give the beggar my last crust of bread, but if I do I'm going to starve) at the same time. In other words, the average person is not simple, the way Ayn Rand paints people, he or she is "complex".
Complex people always see an inherent conflict in everything they and they go through life feeling guilty about wanting to eat the bread themselves. But, that's the point. Guilt is a powerful tool for convincing an individual to act against his or her own best interest and those that benefit from these actions are past masters at getting people to feel guilty. Obviously, this leads to the last point.
Objectivism is inconsistent with Christian moral values and the moral values of any organized religion. The simply fact is that you cannot believe in God and be an objectivist at the same time. This presents no problem to the atheists of the world. It's the rest that have trouble understanding Ayn Rand.
The point of this review is that, if you are committed to some "selfless" philosophy (be it Platonic, Christian, communist or whatever), you are not ready for Atlas Shrugged. At best, the book will disappoint you and, at worst, leave you without a value system. It will not, however, change you mind. Irrational beliefs, by their nature, cannot be overcome with rational arguments.
If, on the other hand, you find that the meaning of life as taught in Sunday school, sociology class and most economic text books doesn't seem to make sense, you may be ready for Atlas Shrugged. If, on the other hand, you a looking for a philosophy that will justify your desire to place your own self-interest on a higher plane than the self-interest of every other human being, you are also looking in the wrong place. If there is any central premise to Atlas Shrugged it is that while each individual has the right to promote his or her self-interest, he or she cannot do so at the expense of any other individual.
From a practical perspective, one should never start with Atlas Shrugged anyway. Atlas Shrugged is a continuation of Fountainhead and simply asks "what would happen to organized society if altruism won"? As such, it is very much a (negative) utopia much like George Orwell's 1984. It presents a horrific worst case scenario of what would happen if individuals surrendered that which make them individuals: their individuality.
If you do decide to take the plunge, be prepared to disagree with most people, even those who claim to be objectivists. For example, not long ago, I talked with a person who claimed to be a member of an "Ayn Rand society", who acknowledged that the government does have some legitimate role in society (to provide a common defense, police force and justice system) but who thought that the cost (paid in taxes) should only be borne by wealthy businessmen (who benefit from the system) and not the average person (for whom taxes should be voluntary). Some people's desire to live on someone else's dime is so strong, that they will go to any length to justify it.
And finally some good news, it you do read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and understand what you have read (which you probably will not), you will cease to care what any reviewer, including myself, thinks about these novels, or Ayn Rand, or her philosophy. You will have grown up. You will have learned to own head. Congratulations. |
|
|
J. Kindseth (MSL quote), USA
<2007-01-09 00:00>
It has been over 10 years since I read Atlas. Since reading Atlas for the first time I've undergone experiences and seen places that reinforced the conditions of life described so eloquently in Rand's great mystery novel. At the same time, however, I've experienced situations both first-hand and from a distance that highlight the grayish hues of social justice and, without contemplation, appear to undermine Rand's themes and world view. Through a grueling process of self-realization, I've found myself able to answer the 3 most important questions that I think this book leaves with it's readers:
Why does this book affect some people so deeply?
- The archetypal characters of Atlas experience the lonliness that all passionate people feel at some point in time in life. One does not have to be a cutting-edge scientist of executive to feel the emotions that men like Hank Reardon feel. Atlas is filled with detailed scenes depicting this brutal lonliness. What makes these scenes memorable is that the characers are self-realizing this painful emotion, and the reasons for it, in the narrative. Those people who cherish this book, I think, do so in large part because it is comforting to know that we are not alone in our dreams and aspirations for the world around us; sometimes events make these items difficult to hold.
Who is the more moral man - John Galt or Eddie Willers?
- 6 years ago someone asked me this question and I felt dumbfounded. I did not know! Are they not equals? This is a difficult question for one to answer, because, I think, that one cannot honestly answer it without first judging his or herself. This question has come to mean a great deal to me because I think that there is a difference between John Galt and Eddie Willers, and not simply in terms of talent (the obvious difference and superficial basis for comparison). John Galt is the moral man because he takes definitive action. Eddie Willers - it must be said that he does not possess the same talent as Galt - permits his fear of failure to tie him to a world that he does not respect, despite the fact that he sees the morality of the world he cannot release. I am ashamed to say that I aided the U.S. to overthrow the government of a sovereign nation with brute force and disrupt the lives of its population. I know that the threat of violence does not accelerate change, even if it does permit change to occur. I know that it is excruciating not to know how to act when someone makes you choose between the life you know and your sense of honor.
Finally, do presence circumstances (Enron, MCI/Worldcom, bank eat bank) post Atlas as an irrelevant piece of American history?
- No. Ayn Rand expounds a philosophy in Atlas Shrugged and her speech to USMA "Philosophy: Who Needs It" - her 2 best works I think - that is communicated through a story. The story has distinct characters, but the social position of these characters in the novel make it deceptive to hastily view todays capitalists through the same lens. While Rand uses the $ sign to symbolize value, it is not dollars themselves that are the currency of men in Gult's Gulch. Instead it is value that is the real currency. Capitslism IS a complete philosophy - and not just an economic system, as children are prone to be taught - exactly because it allows us to assess value in absolute terms, not in currencies which merely reflect value. If you apply this logic - that the true capitalists are those who exchange items of equal value - it seems to me that the real looters of today ARE the proposed capitalists who propose that their only objective is to get cash to their investors (and themselves, of course). What is lacking with this 21st century generation of looters is a sense of direction or pride in the actual fruits of their labor beyond the rewards that show up as big numbers in bank accounts.
Atlas Shrugged is a thrilling mystery story and, after one reads it, much like a religious text for those who believe that men can discover truth, even if we must be content, today, to merely stand on the edge of the unknown and hypothesize. |
|
|
Ronald Springer (MSL quote), USA
<2007-01-09 00:00>
The sheer number of reviews on this page is evidence of the value and effect her work has had on so many. I've devoured the works of Ayn Rand, Aristotle, Aquinas, Hugo, Shakespeare, The Bible, and she stands above them all. Actually, she stands with the founding fathers of America.
The animosity and isolation some feel after reading her work is common. Her depiction of how things should be, makes many choices we witness in the world that much more unbearable. Rand's own declared "loathing for humanity" unfortunately was transmitted to her students who often do not have the intellectual ammunition to overcome the negativity. The constructive abandon the hostility and grow to Galt's stature while the poor thinkers ultimately have to abandon Rand, in pace with their abandonment of ideals.
Seeing the many asinine comments new readers are subjected to, such as the idiot speaking of the male hero in the book who runs the railroad, making it obvious he didn't even read the book (Dagny runs the railroad and is a woman), the trite crassness of making her every character out to be a joke, the literary attack of those who could never equal her, or those trying to convince new readers that Rand's ideas amount to the exact opposite of the civil, rational, honorable truths they actually amount to, somewhat justifies Rand's hostility. To them I say, "We do exist. We have all the treasures in fulfillment and wealth that you desire and we worked for them, just as you've earned your position and all the self-loathing it generates." Hate us because we're happy.
What did Rand actually stand for? She stood for the spirit that built this country. She stood for the greatness of America and her best people; the hardest working, the most passionately devoted and the most honest dealing. If you want to learn how life is lived by those at the very top, from a moral as well as a day to day actionable perspective, there is no better fiction work to show you than Atlas Shrugged.
I went through the negative phase myself and fortunately, through Moral Armor, I solved it. The anger is gone, the pure happiness described when Dagny met Galt for the first time is mine as a constant, and I've mapped out the way for it to be yours. The next step past Atlas Shrugged has been taken to simplify the structure of Western Philosophy and remove the isolationist barriers between all sects, by drawing a deeper moral parallel between men than has ever existed.
Atlas Shrugged gave me more than I can tell you, though it widened the breach between Christianity and Western Philosophy that Aristotle (through Aquinas) had closed. Rand followers are closer to the goal, but both sides have a bit to learn. Join me, and together we will reach Atlantis. |
|
|
Clint Mosso (MSL quote), USA
<2007-01-09 00:00>
Set aside your preconceived notions about the philosophy of Ayn Rand and read Atlas Shrugged with an open mind. It is hard to dive into it without having heard at least something about the storyline and ideas within. Both positive and negative. It also takes a pretty decent commitment coming in at over 1000 pages. But the journey is well worth it. The book has it all: politics (all bad, as they should be and usually are), economics, mystery, adventure, philosophy, drama, clandestine affairs etc. etc. It is truly epic story telling. My only two problems with the book are that it could indeed use some editing. Some ideas are covered way too many times, and it gets tiresome having the feeling that Rand is literally trying to pound certain concepts into your head via repetition. The characters are another. There just isn't enough variety in her characters. You feel like, whenever one of her heroes speaks, the dialogue could be coming from any of a dozen characters in the novel. Individual personalities are hard to distinguish at times. However neither of these issues could detract from what is otherwise an amazing achievement, and should be read by fans, critics, and the unexposed for its thought provoking ideas, refreshing outlook, and practical philosophy that is all too rare nowadays. |
|
|
J. Eaton (MSL quote), USA
<2007-01-09 00:00>
Atlas Shrugged was a lightning bolt across my consciousness. It was shocking to be so completely divested of all of the socialist trappings of my ignorant college mindset. It was extremely liberating to acknowledge the proper role of government is limited to just defense and the criminal justice system; to acknowledge that government is necessarily ineffective and parasitic in all other realms of society; and to acknowledge that a man has a right to pursue happiness without being a victim of force or fraud.
Many have "reviewed" this book without mentioning its themes, or simply criticizing Objectivism itself. They claim lovers of this book and adherents of Objectivism as "full of hate"; the reason is never explained or justified. Because I think I'm entitled to my own paycheck and to no one else's money, I guess that makes me a hater. Because I believe that I am entitled to pursue my own happiness without the government regulating my life I'm a hater. I guess there are still people who enjoy claiming the status of victim while "feeling" and "empathizing" people's money and property right out of their pockets, with the government's use of a gun backing them up.
The book deals with several themes, one of the most important of which is the non-producing government using its monopoly on force to rob from and extort the nation's most valuable assets - the producing business- men, inventors, scientists. These are people who have to work for a living, and have enhanced this nations' standard of living by orders of magnitude.
You may want to ask yourself how prophetic this book is as the United States continues to destroy the concept of the individual and individual's rights. The recent Supreme Court decision regarding Kelo, the campaign finance reform laws inhibiting free speech - there are many examples of the encroachemnt of the federal government on the life and welfare of the individual.
Don't believe it? Ask yourself where a third of your paycheck goes - to whom, for what, and in whose name? This book is a Must Read. |
|
|
An American reader, USA
<2007-01-09 00:00>
This is probably one of the most difficult books anyone can take on. Reason one is its length. Incredibly long, it is nevertheless ground- breaking. It was considered to be the first novel of "ideas," that is to say, a novel that was supposed to really make one think about the world and the way it works - or doesn't.
The basic premise is this (and I'm not giving away anthing or adding any spoilers here): The world if run by a handful of people who really know what they're doing, perform their job well, have a sense of ethics, and are responsible. Problem is, there's another group - the ones who take credit for everything the others have done and then proceed to screw everything up.
At one point, all those who really make things work (think the middle managers in a company who actually know what's going on but are not given credit and sometimes actually blamed for what goes wrong, even though they had nothing to do with creating the problem), decide to "withdraw" from society and let it fall apart. And it does - fall apart.
My only complaint with the book was with the speech that Galt gives about three fourths of the way through the novel, essentially recapping everything that we've just been shown. It seemed unnecessary and, well, a recap. Other than that, this was an extremely thought-provoking novel.
Recommendation: for those who are not Rand readers or want a first time experience I would highly recommend The Fountainhead, which is shorter, easier to read, and filled with just as many "ideas" as "Atlas."
Also, if you're already a Rand fan, you must read the bio written on her - it sheds a great deal of light on not only her philosophy, but some of her faults as well.
|
|
|
Hubert Calhoun (MSL quote), USA
<2007-01-09 00:00>
This fictionalized narrative of 1168 pages, in the process of setting forth a consistent philosophical worldview, fantasizes about what could happen when the most important humans - the thinkers, inventors, and producers - go on strike. When it was written, in the early 1960s, the Cold War was in full fledge, and the scare de jure was commonlialism and other collectivist ideologies of the socialistic left genre.
Today, the opposite concerns bedevil the world. The old concerns about socialism, collectivization, and communism have withered away in favor of today's much more serious concerns with the negative consequences of the "so-called" superior thinking races, the corporate classes, and their courtiers of the far right, who have taken over the world via lobbyists, globalization, off-shore corporations, outsourcing, privatization, and militarization. In the process, their superior thinking has set us firmly on the road to totalitarianism at the opposite end of Rand's spectrum, Fascism.
Contemporary Fascism has raised its ugly head again in the form of: preemptive wars, global pollution, the worldwide proliferation of nuclear weapons, and bifurcation of the world into obscenely rich and obscenely poor classes and races, just to name a few.
In any case, it was Rand's philosophy woven across the pages of the book that was important. She summarized it much more carefully and succinctly in her 1964 Playboy interview. The main themes of which follow:
Ayn Rand's Philosophy is referred to as Objectivism. It is a carefully worked out, internally consistent worldview based on the metaphysic that an objective reality exists "out there" independent of a perceiver and especially independent of his feelings, emotions, wishes, hopes, fears, and myths. The most basic premise of the Objectivist worldview is summarized best in Rene Decartes "Cogito ergo sum:" I am thinking, therefore I am." That is to say, man's only means of perceiving reality, his only guide to the construction of values, and his only guide to proper action (and thus his only true means of survival) is reason itself. Reason, in the Objectivist's worldview is that faculty which identifies and integrates the materials provided by the senses.
The ethics of Objectivism is derived directly from this metaphysical premise: that since reason is man's basic tool of survival, rationality must be his highest virtue; and conversely, a man without thought as his mental guide, and without conscious purpose, is of the lowest virtue, or is the most depraved. To use his mind, to perceive reality accurately, and to act accordingly, is man's most important moral imperative. The irreducible standard of man's value is the thinking needed to survive. Therefore, according to the Objectivist worldview, man is a supremely selfish being, not an altruistic one. He exists for himself, for his own survival and for his own happiness, which is his highest moral purpose. Thus, in the cannon of the Objectivist worldview, self-sacrifice, altruism, compassion and fundamental guilt (or original sin), have no place. Man cannot be guilty, a priori; he has to earn his guilt through his actions.
It follows from this then that all evil is derived from mental laziness - as a consequence of man's failure to think; that is, through his evasion of, or his search for ways to escape reality, and thus in his failure to confront reality with honesty. In as much as this is true it is the man without purpose - who has no rational basis for his values - that is most dangerous to himself and to others. Such a person drifts at the mercy of his random feelings, unidentified urges, sublimated fears, and is thus capable of evil precisely because he is totally out of control of his life. In order to be in control of one's life, rational thought in the form of productive and creative purpose must be front and center as man's only proper imperative.
A central creative purpose serves to integrate and organize man's life around a hierarchy of values weighted according to their relative importance. It galvanizes and focuses his actions and energizes him towards survival related pursuits and purposes; and as a byproduct of this purposeful action, man learns to enjoy life. Otherwise, without purpose and purposeful action, man's internal compass is rudderless. Without purpose, he will have no way of knowing what his values are; which ones are relatively more important; or how to judge them. He can only drift helplessly at the mercy of chance stimuli, emotions or whims of the moment. He will spend his life in an endless cyclical search of meaning.
Rand notes that it is important to recall that emotions are not tools of cognition; they are affects (and effects), not first causes. What one feels tell him nothing about the facts of reality; they simply give him a rationalized and self-justified estimation of the facts. Emotions are the result of value judgments and assessments. However, this does not mean that emotions are useless. As long as man keeps them in proper relationship to his reason, the two can coexist, reinforcing each other and providing richer meaning in one's life. But when their roles are reversed, and emotions are put in control, and are taken as first cause, while reason is given a passive back seat role, only trouble can ensue. When man engages in this kind of role reversal, he is condemning himself to failure, defeat and ultimately to self-destruction.
A good example occurs with the role of sex. According to Rand, sex is a capacity, not an instinct. It can be a profound expression of man's self-esteem, of his own self-value when used properly. However, a man who does not value himself, with try to reverse this process and try to derive self-esteem from sexual conquest. How man uses sex is a reflection of his values and of his own estimation of his self-worth.
Man is born with certain psychological needs like the need for food and sex, and is equipped with certain mechanisms for pursuing them. But, not being programmed with instincts, he comes without any knowledge of how to use them. Using his mind, he has to discover how to satisfy them through experience. Without the use of his mind, man can neither discover nor satisfy these basic needs. Likewise, in the realm of values. Man's urges, emotions, and whims will not tell him what to do. Man has to determine what is right and wrong through thinking as a rational being.
Objectivism is not a dogma - something accepted on blind faith without rational justification or without being grounded in empirical evidence. It is exactly the opposite. It tells you not to accept an idea unless its truth is grounded in reason or solid empirical evidence. Thus Objectivist's hold that the world is black or white, good or evil, not tones of gray. Diluting good with evil renders everything evil, just less so. The lesser of two evils remains evil.
With respect to economics, Objectivism equates "free trade" with a "free mind." The dollar sign, is the currency of a free nation and symbolizes a free mind. In other words, "free trade" and "free minds" are corollaries of each other. One cannot exist without the other.
On religion, God and the Christian philosophy make no sense to an "objectivist." Religion is blind belief made into a tyrannical orthodoxy unsupported by, and often contrary to the facts of reality. Faith, by being the negation of reason, is extremely detrimental to human life. Christ, by sacrificing himself on the cross, sacrificed the ideal (himself) for the non-ideal (the sinner and vicious evil doers). The evil-doer is then supposed to understand and respect this sacrifice? Although Rand does not say so explicitly, to the Objectivist, religion is not only wrong, anti-human, but very dangerous.
Although religion was invented to help explain the universe, and to give a coherent frame of reference to man's life through a code of morality and ethical teachings, it is the very negation of reason. And thus through its mythology and emotion-based orthodoxy, has done great harm to mankind. Rand believes that "faith" is a dangerous basis upon which to build a philosophy or an ethical system.
In the Objectivist world, the whole process of living is about the achieve- ment of values. If the values are great enough, sacrifice is appropriate to save them. But living for them is even more important than dying for them. Artists should shape and help challenge the values of their culture, not be passive followers of it. Objectivism then is an activist and a prescriptive philosophy. It projects the ideal man "as he should be." Philosophy is just a means towards this end. Values based on rational judgment is the only authority. As a result, there can be only one proper function of government: the protection of individual rights.
Rand believe the neo-cons (who rule the world today) are dangerous because they tie capitalism to religion. In order to accept capitalism, the neo-cons believe one must believe in God or some other form of supernatural mysticism.
And finally, Rand believes that all of contemporary conflicts will remain "wars over ideas."
Although the novel is a brittle and sophomorish bit of craftsmanship, the beauty of Rand's ideas is that they are always sharp and angular - "front and center," no hedging, no political correctness. Whether you believe her or not, whether you accept her ideas or not, there is no confusion about what she means. Five stars. |
|
|
John Aquilar (MSL quote), USA
<2007-01-09 00:00>
I have read books that advocate collectivism, socialism, "progressive" policies.... and I must admit that I did not "enjoy" them. I understood them, found a couple to be interesting, but I do not care for the philosophies they advocate. If you are a modern day liberal or moderate you will not enjoy Ayn Rand's work. She doesn't allow for any middle ground. I am sure Atlas Shrugged will frustrate you to no end. It is as simple as that. If you believe that no individual, or government, should have the right to take from one individual to give to another...you will agree with Rand.
The question the story addresses is, what would happen to the world if the main producers of the world went on strike? Rand chose to answer the question as a means to explain her philosphy. She goes into great detail to describe how the producers in society are treated by the unproductive, or less productive members of society, and why the producers eventually give up. Page after page go into describing the psychology of the main characters and there are frequent passages that could be described as lectures.
This paragragh addresses some of the comments I read in reviews before I decided to read Atlas Shrugged. I can see how some people would feel insulted by some of the language Rand uses when talking about the James Taggarts of the world, but it is better to read the book and disagree with it, rather than choosing to never read it. As for preaching "hate", I did not get that feeling from the book. If anything, it seems to me that Rand preached indifference to those characters that always tried to stake a claim to others. Here is my guess at Rand's philosophy in practice... if a bum on the street had asked Rand for money, my guess is that she would have politely answered "no" or ignored the bum and continued on her way. I don't think she would have felt pity or anger for the bum, simply because the bum made a series of decisions that placed him in that position. To put it another way, why should the bum get her sympathy? His position is just. But, he would not be the target of her anger either. Unless he declared some "right" to that which SHE had earned, his presence created no hardships on her life and happiness.
My last comment is an expression of my opinion on our national policies. Rand was a student of history and economics. You can tell by the way she works in so many fine examples of poor government policy, "misplaced good intentions". History is littered with them. It is hard to believe that she wrote this book over 50 years ago, yet our nation has gone further down the path toward a "People's State" than it was when she wrote the book. As Milton Friedman wrote...there is no free lunch...so why do we continue to try to give out free lunches? |
|
|
An American reader (MSL quote), USA
<2007-01-09 00:00>
I've read Atlas Shrugged a few times, and it's become less and less convincing each time I read it. Rand's basic premise is that the United States became the greatest country in the world because of the vision of a few great men who pursued their visions without the inteference of centralized, collectivist, and confisticatory government. Rand believed that the industrialist and the businessman were modern, unappreicated heroes whose greatness was exploited by an altruistic philosophy that punished them for their brilliance. In Atlas Shrugged, Rand creates a world in which all of the productive members of American society are convinced by John Galt to "drop out" and form their own Utopia to protect their brilliant contributions from exploitation by "looters" and "moochers." This results in America's ultimate collapse, clearing the way for the men (and women) of ability to return to society build a new America based on selfishness and egoism on the ashes of the destruction wrought by collectivism and altruism.
There are two main problems with Atlas Shrugged. The first is philosophical. Rand ignores the fact that capitalism has survived in the United States because it has been supported, and often saved, by the government. The great economic achievements in America's history, far from being the product of a few unfettered and creative industrialists, were actually the product of government support and aid. It was government regulation that saved the US economy from itself during the Great Depression. It was government protectionism that protected nascent American industries during the early years of America's nationhood. The America that Rand imagines really never existed, except in theory.
The second problem with Atlas Shrugged is the writing. The book is long, the dialogue unconvincing, and the characters unbelievable. Rand creates the greatest collection of straw men ever knocked down in print. James Taggart, Cuffy Meigs, Wesley Mouch, Dr. Sadler, and a cast of others are ridiculous caricatures. They are stupid, petty, and vindictive to the point of ridiculousness. The heroes in the book, by contrast, are individuals with seemingly superhuman intellectual gifts. Also, Rand should not be allowed to write sex scenes. They were completely out of place. Atlas Shrugged is a book with little nuance or subtlety. It is a thousand-plus page assault. It is often said that when your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. This book is a perfect example of that.
(A negative review. MSL remarks.)
|
|
|
Brock McCoy (MSL quote), USA
<2007-01-09 00:00>
Few books can change your life like Atlas Shrugged can.
Not everyone will agree with every ideology. Even if you're not a fan of Ayn Rand's philosophy, some basic personality traits are brought out in this book that just work for many people.
Believing in oneself is a trait that works. Hank, Dagny and Francisco all have self-confidence and they act on their desires.
"Be a man of action" is a common theme of Atlas Shrugged. The idea that you can achieve your dreams and goals if you just go out and do it is awesome advice. I'm sure more than one person has unhappily sat on his or her sofa for far too long and lived to regret it. We tell children all the time that you can "be anything you want to be," but this book illustrates that idea and allows the person to witness the truth of that lesson.
The arguments complaining about a sense of elitism throughout the book are only partly true. Sure, the main characters want to live in their own ideal society, and they do, but they're not above letting a boy who works on a train into their society. The society is simply divided from the rest of the world because of philosophical agreement, just like any other society. If you don't like your current society, you can either change it or revolt. The main characters choose to revolt.
The federal government taxing individuals to provide public facilities may not fulfill the entire definition of socialism, but it is an aspect of it. Rand realized that in order to escape socialism, there can be no compromises. Responsibility must be placed with the individuals of a society for the system of government to be fair. Rand wasn't arguing for a system of government with the end goal of a luxurious lifestyle. Her characters sacrificed a lot of their lives for their ideas. Hank sacrificed a decade to develop his steel. Francisco sacrificed most of his life, away from his love, to fulfill his goals. They weren't striving to be able to afford gargantuan houses, as apparent when Dagny visits the hidden town, but rather they wanted to live by how they thought was right. And to say one way of living is better than another is just an opinion.
I'm just scratching the surface, but if my defense of the book sounds interesting, read it. If my defense doesn't sound interesting, read the book anyway.
Despite the attention Atlas Shrugged receives for its philosophy, there's also gun fights and love spread nicely throughout the book like flavorful chocolate swirls in a homemade cake. Enjoy. |
|
|
|
1 2 | Total 2 pages 12 items |
|
|
|
|
|
|
